Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Evangelical
Politics and Religion
Why Abortion Divides American Protestants

Why Abortion Divides American Protestants

Last updated on: January 24, 2023 at 3:13 am by Daniel K. Williams

0 Comments

Why Abortion Divides American Protestants 2023-01-23T23:29:42-04:00 Daniel K. Williams

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

This week, the most controversial Supreme Court decision of modern times, Roe v. Wade, reached its fiftieth anniversary. Even though the Supreme Court rescinded the decision last year, the divisions that Roe made evident are still very much with us. Nowhere is that more true than in the area of Protestant Christianity, where some denominations endorse abortion rights and others denounce abortion as “murder.”

First Baptist Church, Providence, Rhode Island (Wikipedia)

Perhaps we can observe this fiftieth anniversary of Roe by asking why American churches divided over abortion and what these divisions really mean. At a time when some American Christians are suggesting that it’s time for a theological reexamination of abortion, perhaps it would be useful to ask why the various theological divisions over abortion within American Protestantism developed in the first place.

These divisions were not very evident before Roe. While theologically conservative Protestants were generally more likely than liberal Protestants to oppose abortion, there were plenty of exceptions.

For instance, the first president of Americans United for Life – which was founded in 1971 – was the Unitarian George Huntston Williams, a professor at Harvard Divinity School. The year in which Williams became the founding president of Americans United for Life was the same year in which the Southern Baptist Convention passed a resolution urging Southern Baptists “to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother.”

But Roe clarified for some Christians the issues that were at stake in the abortion debate, and it set in motion a process that further exacerbated the divisions between American ecumenical Protestants and theological conservatives on the issue.

Christians and the Abortion Debate before Roe

The Christian church had a long history of opposing abortion. The opposition was not always perfectly consistent, and for several centuries many theologians in the West who were influenced by Aristotle suggested that ensoulment might occur well after conception (but well before birth), but neither the Eastern nor Western church ever suggested that human life began at birth or that abortion was licit. As early as the second-century Didache, Christians equated abortion with infanticide, a view that was echoed in other early Christian writings. And at first, the Protestant Reformation did not signal a break with this thinking. John Calvin, for instance, explicitly condemned the destruction of fetal life.

Protestant ministers in the United States said very little about abortion in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and when they did begin speaking out on the subject in the mid-twentieth century, they struggled to find a consistent position on the issue. In the 1930s, the few Protestant denominations that expressed a view on abortion (such as the Anglican Communion) expressed their opposition to it. But in the early 1970s, most of the major ecumenical or mainline Protestant denominations endorsed abortion rights.

Liberal Protestant Views on Abortion

Most liberal Protestants of the 1970s recognized that abortion could be morally problematic. But in the end, their belief in the Social Gospel and the social value of birth control, their emphasis on the right of the individual person to make moral decisions without coercion, and their growing interest in women’s rights and civil rights prompted them to endorse abortion legalization.

As Melissa Wilde’s Birth Control Battles demonstrates, Protestant endorsement of birth control campaigns in the 1920s and 1930s was very closely correlated with the Social Gospel. Denominations that embraced the Social Gospel endorsed birth control campaigns as a way to reduce poverty and improve society; those that rejected the Social Gospel were also likely to eschew birth control.

The same thing was true with abortion in the early 1970s. Denominations that saw both sin and salvation in social terms were likely to minimize any sin that might be associated with individual pregnancy termination and instead focus on the social benefits of abortion legalization. It would reduce unnecessary suffering and maternal death, and it would be an act of compassion for women who were marginalized.

In the 1960s and 1970s, liberal Protestant denominations tended to view social evils in morally absolute terms, but individual moral decisions as a relativistic matter. Social evils such as racism, unjust wars, and economic inequities had to be confronted. But when it came to individual actions, they emphasized the right (and responsibility) of each person to engage in personal moral decision-making guided by the “law of love.” Abortion was a matter for individual decision-making, liberal Protestants argued in the late 1960s and 1970s. There might be good reasons for a woman to decide to keep her unwanted pregnancy because of a conviction about the ”sanctity of life.” But the Christian Century and other liberal Protestant publications insisted that neither the law nor the church could force this choice on her.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade reflected this liberal Protestant respect for individual conscience rights. Roe acknowledged the moral weight of the abortion decision, but said that until the point of viability, the pregnant woman’s right to determine the matter of abortion for herself superseded all other interests. It was an intensely individual approach to moral decision-making, and it reflected liberal Protestant views at the time.

Liberal Protestants also believed that abortion restrictions exacerbated gender inequities – which meant that the advancement of women’s rights required legalized, accessible abortion.

In the 21st century, liberal Protestants increasingly became convinced that abortion restrictions especially harmed the poor and people of color. And with this conviction came a renewed effort to defend abortion rights. While liberal Protestant pronouncements on abortion in the early 1970s were likely to emphasize individual freedom of choice, liberal Protestant discussions of abortion today are much more likely to focus on issues of equity, poverty, and racial justice.

But this approach to abortion raised some uncomfortable questions for some liberal Protestants. It was not entirely clear from liberal Protestant theology why the fetus was not a person. And if it were a person, one could argue that liberal Protestants who cared about social justice and protection of the marginalized had a duty to defend fetal rights. This was why in the late 1960s and early 1970s several liberal Protestant professors and clergy, including the Episcopal priest Charles Carroll, the Princeton ethics professor Paul Ramsey (a Methodist), and the Harvard Divinity School professor George Huntston Williams, endorsed the pro-life cause. Some of them connected a defense of fetal life with opposition to the Vietnam War or a defense of civil rights for African Americans, because they thought that human life must be protected at every stage of life – including the fetal stage.

But most liberal Protestants resolved this moral tension by focusing on the social harm to women and minorities that resulted from restrictive abortion laws. They may not have been willing to say that abortion was perfectly moral, but when the debate was not centered on abortion’s morality but rather on the question of whether it should remain legal and accessible, they could more-or-less unite around the assertion that restrictive abortion laws harmed women, people of color, and the poor, and that abortion should therefore remain legally protected.

Evangelical Protestant Views on Abortion

Evangelical Protestants approached abortion from a very different vantage point – though the fact that they would do so was not immediately obvious in the late 1960s and early 1970s. When abortion policy first became a matter of public debate in the late 1960s, evangelicals lacked a clear theological consensus on abortion.

This was largely because evangelicals had just recently rethought their position on birth control. In the 1930s and 1940s, no evangelical Protestant denomination had followed ecumenical Protestants in endorsing birth control, and several conservative Protestant periodicals expressed opposition to the liberal Protestant birth control campaign. But at the beginning of the 1960s, national evangelical magazines began publishing articles that suggested that Christian married couples could use birth control (and even the birth control pill) without sin.

Compared to liberal Protestants, it was a cautious endorsement. Evangelical magazines continued to insist that God’s expectation for most couples was for them to have children. Unlike liberal Protestants, evangelicals remained highly skeptical of the population control movement, and they showed little enthusiasm for the campaign to distribute birth control pills internationally as part of global poverty reduction or population control efforts. They thought that birth control should never be used by unmarried people to facilitate out-of-wedlock sex. But Christian married couples who wanted to have children at some point could legitimately use contraception to delay childbearing or limit the number of children they had. This stance, while remarkably conservative by liberal Protestant standards, was nevertheless an innovation for mid-twentieth-century American evangelicals.

Evangelicals’ shift in attitudes toward contraception shaped their reaction to the abortion debate. While evangelical attitudes toward abortion varied in the late 1960s, most evangelical magazines approached the issue with caution. As with contraception, many evangelicals thought that abortion could be justified in exceptional circumstances. Even Billy Graham, Carl Henry, and (in 1973) the National Association of Evangelicals thought that abortion was justified in cases of rape and incest. And some evangelicals were willing to go a bit further.

In the late 1960s, when abortion policy debates focused on limited liberalization proposals that would modify existing abortion laws to permit pregnancy termination in cases of dangers to a woman’s health or suspected fetal deformity, evangelical ethicists and national evangelical magazines were cautiously supportive.

But after 1970, when several states passed the first American laws to legalize elective abortion, Christianity Today turned sharply against abortion, calling it “murder.” Eternity magazine likewise published strong denunciations of abortion. And while significant numbers of evangelicals continued for a short time to hope that they could find a middle ground on abortion (as the Southern Baptist Convention did in 1971 when it passed a resolution advocating modest abortion law liberalization as an alternative to the idea of “making the decision a purely private matter between a woman and her doctor”), the idea that evangelicals should oppose abortion in most circumstances quickly gained ground.

When Roe v. Wade was issued, the National Association of Evangelicals responded with a scathing denunciation: “We deplore, in the strongest possible terms, the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court which has made it legal to terminate a pregnancy for no better reason than personal convenience or sociological considerations.” Christianity Today said that it was obvious from the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe, that “the American state no longer supports, in any meaningful sense, the laws of God.”

But evangelicals did not immediately move to make abortion policy a political litmus test. Nor did they treat abortion as the most urgent moral or political issue of their time. Instead, for most of the 1970s, they considered abortion part of a larger constellation of moral evils centering on the sexual revolution and the feminist movement.

It was Francis Schaeffer’s How Should We Then Live? (and, after that, Whatever Happened to the Human Race?) that moved many evangelicals from a position of moderate concern about abortion to focused outrage.

Schaeffer portrayed Roe v. Wade as the symbol of the Supreme Court’s abandonment of moral absolutes. Drawing on a theology of abortion that he largely borrowed from Catholic pro-life thinkers, he argued that abortion was only the opening wedge in moral relativists’ devaluation of human life, and that legalized abortion would soon lead to legalized infanticide and euthanasia.

This critique resonated with evangelicals because it touched on many of their concerns about moral decline in America, and it connected the sexual revolution with both the secularization of American institutions and cultural liberalism. In their view, being “pro-choice” meant abandoning the moral laws of God as absolute standards. It meant abandoning a fixed understanding of the meaning of the American Constitution. It meant accepting the premises of the sexual revolution and feminism. And it meant devaluing human life and opening the floodgates to a practice that would probably soon lead to the deaths of other groups that were considered marginal or unnecessary.

The minority of evangelicals who questioned this view wondered whether the lack of any clear biblical prohibitions on abortion (or clear statements that human life began at conception) should give evangelicals pause before they joined the pro-life campaign.

But for most evangelicals, the lack of a clear Bible verse condemning abortion didn’t matter, because it was clear that abortion was associated with a whole host of evils: premarital sex, population control, secularism, moral relativism, and second-wave feminism, to name a few. Evangelicals had never really been pro-choice, but when they became full converts to the pro-life cause, they made their campaign against abortion part of a larger political program to turn back the tide of the sexual revolution, the blurring of traditional gender roles, and the secularization of American government and culture.

Because the evangelical pro-life campaign combined a social justice rationale (saving the lives of a marginalized group) with a culturally conservative political program, it appealed to evangelicals on both the left and the right. Ron Sider, the progressive evangelical who wrote Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger, endorsed the movement, as did cultural conservatives such as James Dobson and Jerry Falwell. Over time, though, the association of evangelical pro-life politics with a conservative Republican political agenda alienated Black Protestants who in the late 1970s had been some of the strongest Protestant Christian supporters of the pro-life cause.

So sweeping was the conversion of white evangelicals to pro-life ideology that it is hard to imagine a time when they had wavered on abortion. And indeed, there probably was never any real chance that a majority of evangelicals would endorse pro-choice ideology, which even in its religious guise was based on theological assumptions about individual moral autonomy that few evangelicals shared. But the evangelical decision to make pro-life ideology the movement’s signature moral and political cause of the late 20th century was based on more than the theology of abortion; it depended instead on the conviction that Roe v. Wade symbolized all of the culturally liberal forces they opposed and that overturning the decision was imperative for anyone who wanted to save human lives and turn back the tide of moral relativism, secularization, and sexual licentiousness in American culture.

The Theology of Abortion in a Post-Roe America

Now that Roe is no more and the particular cultural moment that produced the evangelical pro-life movement is long past, are the pro-life convictions that motivated evangelicals still relevant? Were the evangelical pro-lifers of the late 20th century right to abortion as the premier moral evil of their time? Or did their conversion to the pro-life cause distort evangelical theology?

Who was closer to biblical truth or the church’s historic position – the evangelicals of the late 1960s who cautiously allowed for abortion in some circumstances or the evangelicals of the late 1970s and 1980s who strongly denounced it? Or were the liberal Protestants who endorsed the pro-choice cause in the name of women’s rights, liberty of conscience, and the rights of the poor and marginalized closest to the gospel truth?

The issue is complicated because each group of Protestant Christians in this debate championed some version of a historic Christian principle. The American evangelicals of the late 1960s can be commended for their caution in taking an absolutist stand on an issue about which the Bible does not speak directly. But in dismissing the church’s historic stand against abortion, the evangelicals of that era (who had just abandoned the church’s historic stand against contraception) probably deprived themselves of some of the theological resources that would have helped them interpret the biblical witness on the subject of unborn human life.

The liberal Protestants who appealed to principles of equity, social justice, and concerns for the marginalized were correct in thinking that these biblical concerns had a bearing on the abortion debate. If white evangelicals had paid greater attention to these concerns in the late 20th century, perhaps they would not have alienated so many of the Black Protestants and progressive Christians who shared their opposition to abortion. But liberal Protestants’ lack of interest in grounding their approach to abortion in external authority stemming from divine revelation separated their abortion stance from those of other Christians who wanted a greater continuity with historic Christian orthodoxy and made their approach unacceptable to most evangelicals.

The pro-life activism of many evangelicals in the late 20th century brought evangelicalism into closer alignment with the views of Christians outside of the evangelical tradition (especially Catholics and Eastern Orthodox) who maintained the church’s historic defense of the unborn. But at the same time, it connected the church’s witness against abortion with an American conservative political program that was necessarily so ecumenical or culturally transcendent.

For those who see the pitfalls of the conservative political program that pro-life evangelicals embraced in the name of fighting abortion, it might be tempting to abandon evangelical pro-life theology as well. But evangelical pro-life theology is actually based on a historic Christian witness that long predates American evangelical politics. Many of the evangelicals who embraced the pro-life cause in the 1970s may have been motivated in part by some version of Christian nationalism or culturally conservative politics, but in the process, they stumbled onto an aspect of historic Christian truth that brought them into closer alliance with Christians in other traditions.

For those who care about historic orthodox Christianity and who believe in an external objective moral standard that is based on God’s revelation, the call to protect human life both before and after birth still resonates. Figuring out how to apply this historic Christian teaching in any particular cultural context can be challenging, and I’m not convinced that the evangelicals of the late 1970s and 1980s necessarily got it right when they tried to turn this moral standard into an American political cause. But I do think that they were right in thinking that the Catholic position on the issue was more closely aligned with biblical theological precepts than pro-choice ideology was.

Perhaps now, fifty years after Roe, we can build on that foundation by exploring the many ways in which the Christian theology of human life might be even deeper and richer than the evangelicals of the 1970s imagined. And I also anticipate that the Christian resources we’ll need for that continued exploration will not be exclusively evangelical or Protestant. Even if Protestants will continue to be divided on abortion for the foreseeable future, perhaps the Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox Christians who believe that there is a theological imperative to defend the value of unborn human life can find resources in their shared Christian tradition for an ecumenical and yet deeply Christian approach to the preservation of unborn human life.

Politics and Religion

History and Religion

Abortion

culture wars

Daniel K. Williams

Mainline Protestantism

Politics

White Evangelicalism

Previous Post

January 23, 2023

The Racism of People Who Love You: A Conversation with Samira Mehta

Next Post

January 25, 2023 The Old Faith in a New Nation: A Conversation With Paul Gutacker

Recent Comments

0 | Leave a Comment

"I have an identical twin, and Thomas was always the disciple I connected with most. ..."

Terry

In the Footsteps of Thomas: A ..."

"I've never thought of Constantine as a villain. Do Christians generally? Maybe the ones who ..."

stevewe

Defending Constantine

"The TV sitcom BEWITCHED was an old favorite of mine"

philipjenkins

How Scotland Gave Us Our Modern ..."

"From now on whenever I see a clipper ship, see a certain brand of Scottish ..."

Terry

How Scotland Gave Us Our Modern ..."

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category abolitionism Abortion Abraham Joshua Heschel Abraham Kuyper Abraham Lincoln Academia Activism Adam Renberg Advent Adventist africa African American Religion Agnes Howard Albert Camus American History American Religious History American Revolution American West Anabaptists Ancient History Andrea Turpin Andrei Tarkovsky Anglicanism Annales Ansley Lillian Quiros anti-Catholicism Antisemitism Anxious Bench apologetics Apparitions Arash Azizi Archaeology archives art Artificial Intelligence Asia Asian Americans Augustine Authors Bad Bunny Baptism Baptists Barack Obama Battle of Hastings Benjamin Franklin Bernard-Henri Levy Beth Allison Barr Beth Moore Bethany Mannon Bible Bill Cunningham Billy Graham Black Music Bob Dylan Body Boenhoffer Books Breastfeeding Bruce Springsteen C.S. Lewis Calvinism Cancel Culture Capitalism Carmelites Catholicism Cedric Robinson Cesar Chavez Charismaticism charity Charles Dickens Charles Lindbergh Che Guevara Chicago Children Chinese Christianity Chris Gehrz Christ Christian death Christian Higher Education Christian life Christian Nation Christian Nationalism Christianity Today Christmas Church life Church Practice cinema Civil Religion Civil Rights Movement Civil War civility Classics Climate Change Cold War Colonial Mexico colonialism Comer Communism community complementarianism Conference on Faith and History Congregationalism Conspiracies Conspiracy Conversion Narratives Coronavirus Costa Rica Council of Nicaea Covid-19 Creation Critical Race Theory Crusades Culture culture wars Daniel K. Williams David Barton David Swartz Death Ways death with dignity DEI democracy Democratic Party Devotion Digital Age Diplomacy discipleship diversity Donald Trump Drama Dua Lipa Early Church early modern Early modern Catholicism Easter Eastern Christianity economic exploitation Education elections Elie Wiesel Elizabeth II Elizabeth Taylor emotions Empire Engineering England enslavement Entertainment Episcopal Church Erica Ramirez eschatology Eurocentrism Evangelicalism Evangelicals Exegesis Family Feminism Film Flannery O'Connor folk music Food Foreign Policy founding fathers Franciscans Franciscus Junius fundamentalism Funerals G.K. Chesterton Gender Genocide genre geography George W. Bush George Washington George Whitefield Global Christianity Global church Grief Guadalupe Guest Post guest post gun control gun violence Gustavo Gutierrez Hamid Dabashi Harold John Ockenga Harvest Hate Hawaiian Christianity Healing health care Heather Cox Richardson Hell Heresy Hermeneutics Higher Education Hinduism Hippocratic oath Historical Fiction Historical Methodology Historical Profession Historical Profession Historical Theology Historical Thinking historiography Holidays Holocaust horror movies Human rights Humanitarian Work humanities Hummingbirds Hungary hymns Imago Dei Immigration Injustice Interviews Iran Islam Islamophobia Israel Ivan's Childhood Jacob Randolph James Bratt Janine Giordano Drake Japanese history Japanese Literature Jean Paul Sartre Jesse Miranda Jesus Jesus Christ Jimmy Carter Joan Baez Joan Didion Joanne Freeman João B. Chaves Joao Chaves Joey Cochran John Calvin John Fea John Tillotson John Turner Johnny Cash Jonathan Edwards Jonathan Tran Joseph Smith Josh Howerton Journalism Jr. Judaism Jürgen Moltmann Just War Justice Justin Brierley Karl Barth Katelyn Beaty koi ponds Kris Kristofferson Kristin Kobes Du Mez Latin American Religious History Latino Americans Lectio Divina Leisure Lent Leonard Cohen liberal arts liberalism Liberation Theology Linda Ronstadt Lisa Clark Diller Literature Lou Reed Lynchings Lynneth Miller Renberg Mainline Protestantism Malcolm Foley Marilyn Monroe Maritime history Mark Noll Marriage Martin Luther Martin Luther King Martyrdom Marxism Mary Masih Alinejad mass shootings material culture medieval Christianity Medieval Ethiopia Melissa Borja memory Mennonites Mental Health Mental Illness Methodism Mexican Americans Mexicans Mike Madrid Miles Mullin Min Jin Lee Miscarriage Missionaries Mister Rogers Mitt Romney modernity Monasticism Mormonism Motherhood Mothers of the Church Moving Music Musicals Nadya Williams Nahua Christianity Native Americans Natsume Sōseki New Contributor New England New Year New York Nico Non-Violent Protest Orthodoxy pacifism Paleo Evangelicals Palestinians Parenting Patti Smith Paul Kingsnorth Pedro Calderón de la Barca Pentecostalism Philip Jenkins Phillis Wheatley physician-assisted suicide pilgrimage Pilgrims Piracy pluralism Plutocracy Poetry Politics Pope Francis Pope Leo XIV post-modernism prayer preaching Presbyterians prosperity gospel Protest Public Executions Public history Publishing Puritans purity culture Quakers race Race Massacres Racial Capitalism racial reconciliation racialization Racism Raha Bahloulipour Re-Enchantment reading Reformation Refugees religion and the university religion and war Religious Freedom Religious Nones Religious Pluralism Religious Symbols religious violence Republican Party Revival Rita Coolidge Ritual Roger Williams Roman Catholic church Royalty Russell Moore same-sex marriage Sarah Irving-Stonebraker Scandinavia Science Science and Technology Scopes trial Scriptural Interpretation secularism Selena Quintanilla seminary Seventh-Day Adventists sexual morality Sexuality Sikhs Silence slaveholders theology Slavery Slavoj Zizek social justice Social Media Southern Baptist Convention Southern Religion Spain Spiritual Autobiography Spiritual but not religious Spiritual Discipline Sports Stanley Hauerwas Suffering Summer Camps Sunday Night Odds and Ends Supernatural Supreme Court Syriac Christianity Tal Howard Taylor Swift Teaching Technology Television Thanksgiving The Beatles The Mission theater TheoBros Theology Thomas Dixon Thomas Jefferson Thomas Kidd Thomas Merton Tim Gloege Tim Walz Tom Holland Tourism tradition Tragedy Translation Transnationalism Travel Trump Ukraine Uncategorized Unitarians United Methodist Church US History Vanessa Chan Velvet Underground Verónica A. Gutiérrez Veronica Gutierrez Vikings Violence Virgin Mary Virtue Virtue ethics Visions Voting War WCTU Wendell Berry Westminster Assembly White Evangelicalism Wildfires Winnie the Pooh Witches women Women in Ministry Women's and Gender Studies Work Worship writing Yasunari Kawabata Zena Hitz

Select a Month November 2026 October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

True or False: Hebrews teaches that the blood of bulls and goats can take away sins.

Select your answer to see how you score.

FALSE TRUE